I'm not aware of any country that claims the entire hemisphere.
Lets see, there are no other countries in the Americas (notice how that is plural, that's because there are two continents) that use America in their name that ends the name of the country in America, IF you are refering to the people of a continent, you would need to use North or South as a prefix to America so no one is claiming even an entire continent. Hmm.. Americas is the hemispher, American(s) is people from the United States of America, they are also North Americans.....
I'm failing to see your point. Could you please explain to me what your school is teaching that is supposedly so much better then the schools in America? I mean where is it that you think America means a whole hemisphere? I know the US schools are lax compared to other countries. Well, so they say, so please tell me how you equate the name of the people from a country to an entire hemisphere without making shit up?
IT was probably your usage of the term USians that got you modded. Many ignorant people (Europeans mostly) do not know how the people of a land is names nor do they know the difference between a continent or a country. They seem to think American means North Americans or South Americans. Yet, the United States of America is the only country in the Americas that uses America in it's name so the confusion is all imaginary on their part. But hey, they hold their heads up high and pretend to be smarter then everyone else so I guess we will have to let them have it if it's all they got going.
I think that was his entire point. The questions have all been answered and analyzed, and answered again. The answer isn't hard to find if you know how to look.
Now, there are several answers so there were several links. The differences depend on the specific needs and budget allowances. What the op asked isn't anything new. The only thing new was his use.
You're assuming that the someone you know also knows your RFID number or is able to access it without much trouble.
Otherwise, simply issuing a card with an RFID chip built in at the relief tent with a photo and name that goes into a database that allows the same is enough. No need to tag people here. It all can be done adhoc at the time of need if the person actually wants other to know there he is.
I've taken a cursory look at this system. It's got 2 major failures initially in that it leaves no to distinguish who inherits what or has what power and it doens't account for very humanistic traits like Greed.
It really sound like some magical Marx progress in which things automagicaly become different. There are more problems like directly paying the people instead of corporations in which the bills for the electric and so on don't get paid and if you conceive that it might by the employees paying the people making electric, then you have the entire accounting problem of charging enough to cover costs and so on. Once you stabilize that, you are basically back to where we are right now with a lot more inefficiency.
I'll look at it some more but so far, I'm unimpressed with it. Out side of being one of those "this is a good idea" that never works in reality, I don't think there is much to it.
Perhaps you could tell me about the magical system that is better without ignoring 2000 years of history?
Maybe you can't, maybe you know that. Remember, I didn't say there were no faults with the current system, I said it's better then the alternatives. If you know of something better, then why not say something. I don't buy the entire "everyone dies when they say it" argument either.
Hold it my friend. With all due respect, it is you who is holding misconceptions. I didn't have to read far to find the first one: it is not the Reserve Bank that makes the loans, it is all the "retail" banks for lack of a better term. Money in the United States is put into circulation every time anyone uses a credit card, buys a car or a house, borrows money to operate a business, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The actual loans made by the Fed are a drop in the bucket compared to the loans I am talking about.
Actually, you are the one confused. The retail banks as you put it, cannot own all the money, all they do is make it available to those without enough of it. Money is generated any time wealth is generated which is true regardless of the monetary system in use.
Next you beg the question with your statement that something should "absorb the ups and downs". No! The ups and downs are caused by the very system put into place to supposedly absorb them. Are they less catastrophic then they used to be when we had a deadly combination of commodity based currency and fractional reserves (largely unregulated). Yes, indeed they are. (Well so far at least, although the ever growing national debt may well one day result in a crash to end all crashes. No oil, meaning no food, and millions will perish.) But, no matter, I agree that the ups and downs are less catastrophic, however, in my view the system we have was extorted out of us by the very players who took advantage of the poorly engineered system we used to have to press us into a corner. Not knowing any better, we were ready to try anything. Never forget the words of Woodrow Wilson!! Anyway they adroitly replaced the very bad system we had with one that is just as subject to manipulation to produce said ups and downs, but now (then) firmly under their control. They now milk us like cows, somewhat gently, but never the less implacably.
Lol.. And you do not think the great deprecion back in the thirties was worse? Of course not, you weren't living then to experience it and probably can't be bothered reading anything more then a cliff notes history class short reference to it. Well, lets instead look at other countries that don't use the same system or didn't use it until reletively recently. Oh wait, they are all third world shit holes who's people live worse then the lowest standards in the western worlds. But hey, as long as you have it in your head and refuse to look at the real situation, I guess it's ok.
I only mentioned hedges because you did. I was talking about the monetary system, and you said, "The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system." I disagree with your statement; I don't think that you understand fractional reserve banking and that is why you don't understand how the system causes "cycles". I tried to explain that, (I failed miserably), and then mentioned hedges only to say that they are of small influence compared to the monetary system itself.
I mentioned hedges because it was at the core of the last bubble. Unless you are going to tell me that you are smarter then about all the other economist and people who investigates the last on and say they are all wrong. In my experience, when everyone is saying something different, it's probably because it is actually something different. But hay, hollywood has made millions from selling the one in a million, he's so smart he was the only one with the answer movies. But all those tend to be fictionally based.
Next you go on at some length about the disadvantages of commodity based currency. I am not surprised to hear that from you or anyone else. Remember those levers I mentioned. One of their most sacred levers is the "make sure that the debate is always framed as fiat money vs. gold." I never advocated commodity based currency. It is the very mechanism whereby we were sol
The implied license doctrine would have been more applicable to SCO than to this scenario with the university. At least in SCO's case they could have lied through their teeth claiming they thought they were buying the copyrights too. Oh wait, they actually tried that and it didn't work.
Lets not forget that this is about a license not the copyright itself.
In the sco case, they actually attempted to assert ownership of the copyright itself, not that they had a license to suit their needs. I don't think the university would claims complete control, rather that they had a license that didn't remove their own control. In other words, the guy would have cross or dual licenses the software by the association leading to a work for hire. I can see the argument being made and working.
I just don't see the implied license doctrine working out for the university. The discussions leading up to his hiring would have really defined what the universities intent was when they hired him. If there were discussions about the university not just modifying, but also distributing the derivative software, then an implied license may exist. It's pretty slim that a judge would find that his direct employment creates an implied license of distribution rights for software he created before his employment.
Well, Here is the problem. the discussions didn't pertain to anything surrounding the license. The university can claim and assumption that they would have a license and the guy would have to claim nothing gave them that assumption. It would boil down to the lawyers presenting the case and who is the most believable concerning who knew what, expected what, and when.
And here is the backing that would allow a judge to assume the license existed to distribute. If you clearly rent something, you know you will have to give it back. The condition of employment wasn't to rent part of the software and own only what was built from it, the condition was to hire the guy to bring this software to the department and build on it. Now where would the department get a right to build on the preexisting software? From the author, who did they hire, the author and copyright holder. Did they set terms that they only wanted to use it internally? No, not that the article mentions, so it's reasonable to believe that the employment compensation was for both rights to the software and improvements built on the software while in employ of the department. Otherwise, the improvements wouldn't be as valuable. This especially becomes the case if the employment was under the impression that the software was originally developed for a class in which they would already have a license according to the terms set forth for enrolement.
Now I can't say for sure if this university has that policy, but they often so and that could lead to a license being implied regardless of what the intent is.
Good idea though. You're thinking creatively. Darl is that you?
I'm glad you're keeping your humor in this. However, it's not as funny as you might think considering some of the more recent court decisions that seem to defy common sense. I learned a long time ago, about any lawyer can construe about any situation any way they like. There is enough legal precedent behind this to allow an implicit license to win here. I guess the first thing the guy should do beside seeking competent legal counsel, is sit down with the employer to make sure they know what they got when he came on board and see if that differs from what they think they got.
The DC heller case may have included explosives by association with it's ruling but it didn't say that no restrictions could be placed on ownership. It said that no restrictions prohibiting ownership or the usefulness could remain.
In fact, as a farmer, my father used to have an explosives license and was able to obtain or manufacture explosives for use on the farm. We simply had to justify it's need, notify the county sheriff when it was to be used, and not keep excess on hand. The laws have changed a little since then and I don't have it any more but it was really useful in removing a rock shelf that game me another 30 acres of 12 inch or more topsoil where there was only 3 inches before. The laws still allow people to obtain explosives, there is just more checks and hoops to jump through but it doesn't disallow it.
I agree with your conclusion that the intent of the founders was clear. It's just that the DC case didn't really outlaw restrictions, it made it so that the restrictions couldn't prohibit ownership.
The school could get an implicit license by the nature of the employment. That is if he owned all the OSS code he was hired to work on and develop.
You see, if I hire you to do something because you have X experience and I'm expecting to keep the fruits of your experience, then you need to license the amount of experience to me in order to retain the value of your contributions. So simply hiring him may have been enough to imply a license other then the GPL in order to retain the value and usage of the work for hire code if "his" code is in fact all "his" copyright (outside of the GPLed libraries).
So yes, while they may not get his copyright, they make get a license to the work that allows it to be used outside of the GPL. If that is the case, then whoever owns the libraries will need to pursue the GPL violations if it doesn't fall into one of the exceptions.
That's only if the code in question is contributed to by other sources then the employee.
You see, where the break down in this is even though it's GPL'd, the owner of the copyright can license the code in ways inconsistent with the GPL. This is typically known as a dual license.
I guess the real question here is if the implicit request of the code and continuation of the project, would that require a separate license for the GPLed code given that the author of the code is the employee and he took gainful employment based on that previous code itself. As an employer, one could easily make the argument that was implied with the hiring because his position and salary was based off access to the code and his continued work on the code for hire.
If others owned the code, it couldn't be that simple because you can only assign rights to code you own. But seeing how it's implied that he was the author to date and the potential problems cropped up after asking for outside help, then it's reasonable to assume it was all his code. He may be forced to apply a separate license then the GPL to allow his work for hire code to be functional and all the GPL code that would apply is the code before the hire.
You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that is is impossible not to interpret a document. It's easy to pick a section out of the Constitution like "Congress shall make no law" and say "well, this means that Congress shouldn't legislate such and such", but in reality, life is not so simple. Really, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech? What if it's a nuclear weapons specialist who wants to speak about state secrets to the Chinese? Is a law OK now? This has nothing to do with what I want-- it is simply the reality of working with the law. The Supreme Court's function is not a boolean one ("Constitutional? yes/no"), and never has been.
Your sort of missing the point too. The constitution needs to be interpreted as it was meant to be understood at the time of writing it. The state secrets point is mooted by the fact that the founder and the constitution always recognized a right of sovereignty which allowed restrictions forbidden in the constitution with respect to foreign powers and the borders. The very first congress of the United States, one which many of the founders, authors, and signatories to the Constitution of the United States were members of, initiated warantless searches at borders because the right of sovereignty allowed it.
The constitution need to be interpreted how the founders intended. There were laws and rules regarding spies and agents of foreign powers even then which would cover giving state secrets to foreign countries. It's not a question that would need to be reinterpreted at all and nothing has changed in modern times that would make it different.
You realize, of course, that the 2nd Amendment starts with the phrase "A well regulated militia", right? Do you have any idea how long people have been arguing about the meaning of that phrase? Do you have any idea how long the Founders themselves argued about that?
And I assume that you read the DC gun case ruling where the Supreme Court rightfully interpreted the second amendment as it was written and intended by the Constitution including using the rules of language and various other state constitutions with similar language? That is what is meant as being a strict constitutionalists. It's not that the words are the holey grail, it's that if the meaning of words in the constitution have change, we need to resort to the original definition and intent at the time of the writing, signing, and adoption of the constitution.
A common theme in the second amendment clause with modern denialist is that it only means for government service personnel and when the historical facts were brought up to change that interpretation, they simply dismissed it as not being relevant to today's times. That line of reasoning is exactly what I meant when I mentioned the first, forth, fifth and sixth amendments going away, because someone found that it's not relevant in today's times even though the framers clearly meant it to mean something. Suppose the definition of a search is changed to only mean the home you live in instead of any place you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Then you could be searched as soon as you step out of your home, at any time in any hotel or anywhere else without reason or violating your constitutional protections from unwarranted searches. That was not what was intended by the framers at all.
Let's also not forget that the Constitution itself allows for the document to change, and that all of the freedoms you outlined above were amendments to that document. It was designed from the get-go to anticipate interpretation, because the Founders had had experience interpreting the Magna Carta, as well as many, many other historical legal documents.
The difference here is that if the constitution needs to be changed, it sets a pretty strict guideline to how it can be changed that requires quite a bit of support from the states and public and the
You see, money is backed by wealth. As more wealth is created, more money is created. The problem is that wealth doesn't auto-magically present itself as money or currency and the wealth value can be different values to different people. See the difference between being rich and wealthy if you are confused here.
Now the reserve bank doesn't start by making loans, it starts by consolidating wealth that is owned by people. Then instead of issuing parts of that wealth, it issues notes based on that wealth known as money/currency. Anything can be currency but not everything can be money. So what happens is the government of the land issues a law/writ that states this specific currency is legal tender for all debts, public and private. This validates a certain form of currency as the value of the currency instead of the value of the wealth. Without it, a cabinet maker could be sitting on a million dollars of already made cabinets but if the person who supplies his food doesn't need a cabinet, then it's worthless for getting food. The cabinet maker then has to find someone who needs the cabinets, trade for currency that he can then trade for food or trade for something else that can be traded for food. With money, he trades the first person for money, he now has legal tender of the value that can be directly traded for food and the food maker can trade that for whatever it is that he needs and there is no breakdown efficiency with several trades in order to get what you need.
Now, suppose that we have a population of 10 people (five males and five females) who earn $100 a year and in the total population there is only $1000 in wealth. Each person spend this $100 salary and lives substantially all year long. Now suppose that these 10 people had one child per couple one year and another later down the road. The children would now increase the population to 15 and eventually 20. Now we still only have $1000 between them so instead of $100 a year income, it goes down to $75 and eventually $50. The problem here is that the needs of each person are the same so you have what is known as deflation where prices for good will need to be lowered in order for people to afford them and increases in good production will be needed in order to supply them.
Now, if wealth isn't created, they are in for a big catastrophe economically because it's near impossible to continue creating more for less. So someone loans money based on funds deposited for ventures that will create wealth. Soon, new wealth is added and everyone has what they need and then some. Now we can have inflation because people will charge more for their good to get the extra. So lets say that half of the now 20 people want more and the other half end up getting shorted. Instead of causing a bubble that collapses, they simply borrow money that can be used to create more wealth.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated then that, but your understanding of the central bank monetary system is lacking enormously. Now it is true that there is an exponential rate of loans to wealth but that's not really important was it delays the effects of not having a slush fund of capitol to absorb the ups and downs with a straight wealth based currency. Eventually, if it isn't self correcting, you will see the bubbles, but it will be less often and mostly not as much as it would naturally be.
Hedges and such are just variations on the theme. Also, the mechanism that evolves for determining who gets to "lift the needle" (It's a game of musical chairs.) is where major corruption is instantiated. Major corruption, that is, if one disregards the maxi corruption engendered by the system itself. In comparison to the overall system your Goldman Sachses (the needle lifter in the last bubble bust) are small fry.
Not really. Hedges are different beasts altogether and relate more to markets then monetary systems. It's true that a market can destroy or tear down a monetar
Harriet Miers was the White House Counsel. That's a person who represents the White House in legal matters. Elena Kagen is the Solicitor General, which is a person who represents the United States before the Supreme Court. She was Dean of Harvard Law School as well.
Maybe you should check some facts yourself. Meirs was on the advisory board for a university, head of the Dallas bar association as well as the Texas state bar association and has had just as much if not more experience as Kagan if you discount the political appointments as I said before. Kagan has only been the solicitor general for a little over one year so the distinction between being a white house lawyer (that both were) and the solicitor general is pretty low. Meirs actually has more experience in practicing law privately as well as politically then Kagan does.
Don't forget, it was conservatives who brought down Harriet Miers as a nominee, not liberals, not the media.
It was the dems and media too. Everyone saw it as a bad idea period. Patrick Leahy (D) charged Miers with being "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" with regard to comity questions. This wasn't as you mentioned, a one sided issue and plenty of democrats made plenty of charges.
Sumdumass, you have to start fact-checking the things you hear on Rush Limbaugh before you just repeat them here. I'm telling you this as a friend.
If you weren't blinded by your own politics, you wouldn't be burying your head in the sand with this. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh except for on a few occasions when I want to see why all the liberals are pissed off and what the so called conservatives are pissed about. But as you said, you should start fact checking the things you heard. I didn't offer that the approach I mentioned would be successful, I offered that it would sufficiently supplant any gay bashing agenda and not carry the notations of being a gay basher.
This comes down to things like being a racist without people knowing you are a racists. Did you know that the prevailing wage laws and the government requirements to pay them was not some union conspiracy to rape funding from the government and increase their membership but a racists move designed to lock minority contractors out of government projects? That's right, the problems was that the blacks and Chinese didn't have much, were repressed in society and didn't expect to get much, so contractors would hire them at lower wages to underbid contracts submitted by all white firms where the employees expected a decent pay for decent work. A prevailing wage allowed the all white contractors to compete and maintain white employment while pushing most of the minority firms out because they lacked the funding to pay the prevailing wages. Of course that has changed some now to where any firms of sufficient size should be able to be financed to cover the prevailing wage, but it's conception and appearance was the point. Most people don't even associate the prevailing wage with one of the most racists motivated laws passed but the reality of the situation differs.
In case you are having a difficult time translating the prevailing wage and racism, look at the root of the calls against illegal immigrants stealing American jobs. Anyways, the republicans, and probably some of the democrats can bash Hagan all they want without bringing up the gays at all simply by repeating the Meirs ordeal. This can have the same effect as bashing her for her gay views without even bringing gay into the picture.
And I like being able to bribe one or two senators per state instead of entire state legislatures. It costs way less money and outside of innuendos from disenfranchised idiots or disgruntles constituents, nobody knows it is going on. I guess we all get what we want. Screw Federalism.
All the GOP has to do is retread the comments made over Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers which has about the same qualifications once you factor political ideology out.
In other words, the GOP can bring up the same crap the dems brought up about another similar candidate, remind everyone that it's the same concerns the dems had just a couple of years ago, and either force people to realize the level of politics being played or cause the Dems to jump back from the nominee and not support her.
In fact, this is probably just a Stunt by Obama to get a more liberal nominee approved. After Miers was withdrawn, Bush was able to put anyone else up and get them approved.
So your perfectly fine with the Supreme Court or any Court for that matter making the 1st, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments pretty much null and void except in the most narrow of situations?
I mean if the constitution is an old document that doesn't apply any more and should be interpreted to however in the hell people of today decide instead of in the context to which it was written, then your opening the door for just that. Accepting the already reinterpreted versions is not only dangerous but the same so why look at it at all? It's only the highest document in the land that describes what the federal government can and cannot do accounting to the foundation of this great nation. And if it doesn't matter on some things, then why should it matter at all on the things you might hold valuable?
This always makes me laugh. Strict constitutionalists seem to be the ones protecting the freedoms that the constitution bars the government from taking from the people. Yet, those who see that as just, are typically the same ones who see laws that restrict their freedoms or empower law enforcement as unconscionable even though the restrictions that make warrant-less searches and wire taping or being held without a trial, or being stopped on the street and arrested if you can't provide your papers all illegal and a violation of constitutional rights if it happens.
So maybe you should ask yourself, if the rights you hold dear are protected by the constitution, then why is it that only part of the constitution should have meaning and not all of it. After all, it's the one thing that stops the government from ignoring all your rights.
I can see it now, You don't need a gun, you don't need a speedy trial, you don't need protections from unwarranted searches, you don't need freedom of speech, you don't need to vote, you don't need to be able to practice a religion of your choice or non-at-all, you do not need to elect your representatives or senators. What's that? The constitution? Well, that's just something that gets interpreted to however we want at the moment, it's nothing binding because it is an old document. It is simple and elegant, but not perfect, and many many times before has it stood for nothing and been reinterpreted and you will let it stand for nothing again.
I don't think of it as a massive conspiracy. It can't be, (for the reason you mentions as well as others), and it doesn't have to be. The world's economy is very large. If several groups who operate behind the scenes in shifting allegiances/contests, were to somehow capture say 2% of the GNP of the largest nations, that would be a lot of pie to go around. None of them would want to rock the boat too violently especially now that nationalistic fervor in the western world is torpid. Why bother? That's a lot of pie! Sure, if you can bury one of the others without making a fuss, pull the trigger. After all they'd do it to you given the chance, but don't rock the boat. The slime such as profiteering off military conflicts is what they use as rewards for their toadys. Let the toadys get their hands dirty. They're expendable anyway, plus it's goo
Well, it still would have to be a massive conspiracy seeing how Clinton didn't do much more then throw rocks at them and Bush threw a lot more. Even if you are right and it isn't a conspiracy, then you can't fault the political leaders for their political philosophy if they weren't involved. That's the problem I have with these big conspiracies, it all requires politicians to be part of them or to be innocent pawns in them. Yet when they get presented, it's as if they are idiots and at fault. Well, they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Here's one thing, one little factoid that I find most remarkable and is I believe mostly undeniable. Almost every western nation, and quite a few others, have the exact same monetary system. A central bank that issues credit based currency and is, despite superficial appearances, a private entity, e.g. the Federal Reserve, with is not a part of the Federal government, (and has only fractional reserves).
The Bank of England was the original, and, although it was nationalized in 1946, it still operates largely as a private entity. The European Central bank is composed of the corpses of 16 central banks of the EU states. The history and ownership of all of them is somewhat shrouded. Suffice it to say that they were all originally privately owned as best as I can determine.
Certainly things have been more settled since these entities all embraced the credit system over the gold system, but that in no way excuses the endless cycle of bubble and bust, that despite economists' professions of incomprehension, are directly attributable to the actions of these banks.
Actually, this is because it's a system that works and works with other countries in international trade. It's not some massive conspiracy, the debt for wealth scheme is a simple buffer on inflation moves that stabilizes and standardizes the economies of the areas. Without it, you would have massive inflation or deflation with ever addition or subtraction of wealth in the monetary system. That's not good for the stability of any country.
The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system. In other words, it's the market not the monetary system causing those problems you see.
Here's a thought question: suppose one was at the helm of an enterprise whose most profitable operation consisted of making loans to both of the governments of nations at war with each other. (As long as you loan them both, you can't lose. The victor captures assets and so can pay, and you are lenient with him in return for which he will make it his business to use the power gained via the victory to enforce the loser's repayments.) Would it not behoove one to take whatever steps were necessary to make sure that wars were sparked from time to time? Certainly if one were profiting off a conflict whose casualties number in the millions, have a few odds and ends come to an premature cessation, so as to continue the business, should pose no great moral chasm.
And you point is what, I didn't say it didn't happen, I said it's easier now. Anyways, your article backs up my point, partisanship in the state congress lead to senators not being seated and the public thought the process was undemocratic. The amendment was launched by the states, not the congress which fought it hard.
Well, it depends. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to change your mind. However, after 10 years of dicking around with Iraq after Gulf War 1, we had a pretty solid knowledge of what Iraq was doing. Mainly dancing around the subject of concrete proof because of his relationship with hostile neighbors. We handled it badly. Letting it drag on that long was politically expedient and we're paying a high price for it.
I will agree that we handled it badly. However, I think the part that went badly was waiting too long to take action when it was clearly warranted long before.
However, I wouldn't ban my kids from climbing trees after a fall (I have 4 -- kids, not trees), but would teach them to look closer for dangers and weaknesses before climbing the next one. Along that line, we knew Iraq had *nothing* to do with 9/11. There was no connection, and the President eventually admitted it in no uncertain terms. Iraq, in their actions, presented no direct threat to the U.S. then or in their history.
so we established that you would act differently. However, that's sort of the point and moot at the same time. The climbing a tree example wasn't that you would ban them, it's that you would react differently to them climbing it and that changing your position was perfectly fine. Each and every person would probably have something different to say and the main problem is who is in charge that can execute their change of mind. In the US, it happened to be Bush and the different position was that it's now to dangerous to allow Saddam to hide his possession or WMDs and act publicly against our interests while supporting terrorist. If you were in charge, you could have educated Saddam on how bad WMDs are and what to watch out for. The point isn't the different approaches, it's that different approaches was justified given some action.
Iraq was invaded because it was convenient. The whole "they have WMDs" was the excuse of the day, considering our responses to N. Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel all having WMDs and nuclear programs.
No one outside of conspiracy kooks and people attempting to verbally attack the US shares your opinion here. Most of the people are completely clueless to the facts surrounding the situation and formed unwavering opinions based around that misinformation or assumptions without the facts. You even admitted it yourself when you attempted to claim that WMDs are completely made up.
But here is the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, India and Israel. The difference is two fold so pay particular close attention here. For one, Neither of those countries have engaged in hostile activities with the exception of N.K, against our allies in which the rest of the world came and bailed out. For two, neither of those countries have signed onto the NNPT or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any of it's variants. Iraq was both a member of the NNPT, the chemical weapons ban, the biological weapons ban, and several other treaties along with invading an staunch Allie. And before you show any more ignorance by saying Kuwait was all about oil, you might want to look into the relationship the US has had with Kuwait starting before the US was an actual country and including Kuwait's aid given to the marines in the battle of Tripoli. Our relationship with Kuwait predates oil and our country period. Our support for Iraq in the Iran war was at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for protection against Iran.
You are far more knowledgeable than me, and I appreciate your insights. Again though, something doesn't add up for me. WHY were we acting such a puss? In a related note, I wasn't paying very close attention in the run up to Bush's war in Iraq, but the way we were such pussies re the UN inspectors at that time was the thing I did notice and that didn't make any sense (at the time...) (Well, really it did make sense, if one took the view that the whole purpose was to go to war. You put the inspectors out there, without much in the way of teeth or multi-national buy in, and then the minute that Saddam frustrates them even a little, you go, "See, he's hiding something, and he won't cooperate." "War time!")
I can only guess to why we were such pussies. I'm assuming that it was the difference in politicking between administrations like Clinton's and Bush's. As for the UN, they have always been pretty much toothless. Korea was their first major action and they ended up giving the enemy advanced notice on most of the plans before MacArthur took over the head of theater.
Anyways, Clinton's approach seemed to be more of a tit for tat instead of you have to do this or else. Some people claim most of his actions regarding the treatment of UN inspectors was a smoke screen to hide his domestic problems but that's probably more made up then true.
So, the only way I can make sense of the pussy posture is by taking the the cynical, verging on paranoid, view that this whole disaster has been orchestrated from the beginning to line some greedy assholes' pockets most snugly. Not that I think that said greedy assholes are really all that smart - they aren't, but neither do they have to be all that smart. They just have to be smart enough to pull at least some of the right levers at sort of close to the right time. And to keep pulling enough of the other right levers to make sure that the world's news media is lame enough and distracted enough to never quite put 2 and 2 together.
I wouldn't go that far. Let me attempt to put it differently. Have you ever worked for someone who appeared clueless at their job and the only reason the business didn't implode was because of the hard work of other around them? Well, the US government seems to get that way on foreign relations when some democrats are in charge. Clinton was somewhat that way where love and respect was supposed to be the turning point instead of a nuke or armed conflict. It's basically a different style of government and they seem to have different strong point with different weak points. Well, at least in the last couple of decades.
There are people out there that have a philosophy that you can bribe other countries or some how diplomacy is suppose to work when it hasn't in the past. This is probably evident with the last election where Obama was supposed to make the world like us because he wasn't bush and all the sudden diplomacy would start working again. Well it doesn't seem to be that way in reality but some people just refuse to believe otherwise. That is a fundamental difference between different leaders in the past few decades.
How does that saying go? Never attribute malice to what can more easily be explained away by incompetence? Give peace a change is one of those incompetent actions where time and time again, if we leave hostile countries alone, they end up attacking one of our allies and we get into a large scale war. I'm not saying that we should be jumping to war, but people should know out threats aren't idle so they actually have some weight to them.
I mean look at what you say about the captured Al Qeada officers' attitudes. If the idea all along was to lure them to take actions that would generate a plausible rational for retaliating strongly then they sure got played adroitly, didn't they? Hmmm?
It's seriously just a difference in political approaches. For "civilized countries"
Spare me the civics lesson, buddy. The seventeenth amendment was passed because it became too easy to bribe state legislatures.
And now it's even easier to bribe one or two people instead of the entire state legislature.
Anyways, the non conspiracy nutjob version of why it was passed was because of partisan politicking that lead to several states not seating any senators along with the same partisanship of the elected and sentiments of being undemocratic. The public wanted the 17th amendment because it was a more democratic approach. Anyways, 5 of the 46 states beginning in 1912 were already was doing direct elections per state laws. Two more states gains statehood and chose their first senators but had elections after that.
Here is another wrinkle that is being talked about in the US.
It appears that the UK's economic situation is a little messed up to where they will either have to raise taxes or cut some programs. It seems that the election went the way it did more because politicians were attempting to run away from that then run for an office. What they are saying here is whoever the controlling party is, that they will have to deal with the taxes or cuts and will be sitting out of power for quite a while. None of the parties want that.
This kind of means that no party exactly wants to be blamed for what is about to come so they may very well agree to not address the problems. That seems to mean that the UK will be at risk of seeing problems more along the lines of Greece and experience their recent problems.
In the US, fallout over some of the Tarp bailouts are being seen too in our attempts to fix our own problems. Evidently, one of the most conservative republicans was just outed on the republican ticket to represent the party next election because he voted for the bailouts. So there is a large backlash expected to incumbents who were in power when this mess came rushing down. This backlash seems to be including those who attempted to fix it after the fact regardless of if it was their fault or not. Even in well construed gerrymandered districts, it seems that incumbents at the federal level are at risk to some degree. It's this backlash that many US talking heads think will happen to whoever takes the reins of the UK government which makes some of them frightened to assert control.
The electoral college in the US was built out of a representation of the state's not the people. That may provide a separate but distinct difference between he two systems.
You see, each state in the US was a separate and sovereign country that agreed to surrender certain portions of their sovereignty to the federal government. Most of this was in the form relating to state affairs (state as in foreign affairs) and in relations between the states. Originally, the people elected representative that sat in the house, the states appointed two senators who sat in the senate and they agreed by vote to a president who had some powers of direction. This way, the needs of the people, the state and the union would be represented and balanced out. Now, even today, there is no constitutional requirement for the people to vote on a president. The choosing of electors in the college is solely left to the states to decide on their own.
So it isn't really the representatives that vote on a prime minister in the US system. it's the states themselves who do it. Of course the state government can be seen as representative of the people within the state, but outside of the state's laws, they have no obligation to listen to the people of the state. But the original intent was to allow the states an effective way to agree on a figure head that could be presented to foreign powers and direct congress to some degree.
Now this has been changed a little in modern times but it's still very similar in retrospect despite the misinformation and flagrant abuse of positions out there. The constitutional amendment that made the president and vice president a party ticket instead of a run off between the electors still allows the requirement that one official has to be from another state or their state's electoral votes do not count. So clearly, even with the constitutional amendment, it wasn't intended to change from being a representative of the several states. This modern idea that the president is supposed to be over the people is somewhat misplaced making it nothing like parliament even though they act like it.
One point about Velma being let loose on Linux. I have several locations where internet access by third parties and outside people is desirable. I have sectioned off a network that's fire-walled from the business nets and installed a couple Linux workstations to facilitate this unsecured access.
The most I get called on about in this environment is where a web browser popup says they are infected with something and they can't get the anti-virus it said to use installed. Of course there are tons of outsiders wanting to help with "click it this way" or "you need to be the administrator, right click and select run as then type administrator". I once got a call about the administrator account having been removed from the machine when some rocket scientist consultant attempted to install some program to view the "i love you" message/video his ex girlfriend sent him. (by rocket scientist, I mean the owners nephew or kid or relative or smarter then you next door neighbor, I didn't mean to put actual rocket scientists down that low). And there are those people who found it listed in a forum somewhere that in order to run the program they just downloaded from some random internet site that does something barely legal, they have to disable the anti-virus scanner first because big business has the program listed as a virus to stop you from running it and force you to purchase their version.
Anyways, while the system is still being administrated by a somewhat competent administrator, I really have no problem letting Velma and her kids run wild on it. It simply doesn't let them screw most things up and on the rare occasion it does, I simply restore the/home/user directories to a recent backup that was made with all the Firefox updates and viewers and programs we want them to be able to use. I monitor the traffic on that network as part of the IDS procedures we have in place and to date, they aren't spam bots or or warez traffic.
I guess what I'm getting at is even Velma could be safe on Linux if Glenn or one of his buddies set it up for her. as long as she can do what she wants that isn't destructive, Velma will not know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of any country that claims the entire hemisphere.
Lets see, there are no other countries in the Americas (notice how that is plural, that's because there are two continents) that use America in their name that ends the name of the country in America, IF you are refering to the people of a continent, you would need to use North or South as a prefix to America so no one is claiming even an entire continent. Hmm.. Americas is the hemispher, American(s) is people from the United States of America, they are also North Americans.....
I'm failing to see your point. Could you please explain to me what your school is teaching that is supposedly so much better then the schools in America? I mean where is it that you think America means a whole hemisphere? I know the US schools are lax compared to other countries. Well, so they say, so please tell me how you equate the name of the people from a country to an entire hemisphere without making shit up?
IT was probably your usage of the term USians that got you modded. Many ignorant people (Europeans mostly) do not know how the people of a land is names nor do they know the difference between a continent or a country. They seem to think American means North Americans or South Americans. Yet, the United States of America is the only country in the Americas that uses America in it's name so the confusion is all imaginary on their part. But hey, they hold their heads up high and pretend to be smarter then everyone else so I guess we will have to let them have it if it's all they got going.
I think that was his entire point. The questions have all been answered and analyzed, and answered again. The answer isn't hard to find if you know how to look.
Now, there are several answers so there were several links. The differences depend on the specific needs and budget allowances. What the op asked isn't anything new. The only thing new was his use.
You're assuming that the someone you know also knows your RFID number or is able to access it without much trouble.
Otherwise, simply issuing a card with an RFID chip built in at the relief tent with a photo and name that goes into a database that allows the same is enough. No need to tag people here. It all can be done adhoc at the time of need if the person actually wants other to know there he is.
I've taken a cursory look at this system. It's got 2 major failures initially in that it leaves no to distinguish who inherits what or has what power and it doens't account for very humanistic traits like Greed.
It really sound like some magical Marx progress in which things automagicaly become different. There are more problems like directly paying the people instead of corporations in which the bills for the electric and so on don't get paid and if you conceive that it might by the employees paying the people making electric, then you have the entire accounting problem of charging enough to cover costs and so on. Once you stabilize that, you are basically back to where we are right now with a lot more inefficiency.
I'll look at it some more but so far, I'm unimpressed with it. Out side of being one of those "this is a good idea" that never works in reality, I don't think there is much to it.
Perhaps you could tell me about the magical system that is better without ignoring 2000 years of history?
Maybe you can't, maybe you know that. Remember, I didn't say there were no faults with the current system, I said it's better then the alternatives. If you know of something better, then why not say something. I don't buy the entire "everyone dies when they say it" argument either.
Actually, you are the one confused. The retail banks as you put it, cannot own all the money, all they do is make it available to those without enough of it. Money is generated any time wealth is generated which is true regardless of the monetary system in use.
Lol.. And you do not think the great deprecion back in the thirties was worse? Of course not, you weren't living then to experience it and probably can't be bothered reading anything more then a cliff notes history class short reference to it. Well, lets instead look at other countries that don't use the same system or didn't use it until reletively recently. Oh wait, they are all third world shit holes who's people live worse then the lowest standards in the western worlds. But hey, as long as you have it in your head and refuse to look at the real situation, I guess it's ok.
I mentioned hedges because it was at the core of the last bubble. Unless you are going to tell me that you are smarter then about all the other economist and people who investigates the last on and say they are all wrong. In my experience, when everyone is saying something different, it's probably because it is actually something different. But hay, hollywood has made millions from selling the one in a million, he's so smart he was the only one with the answer movies. But all those tend to be fictionally based.
Lets not forget that this is about a license not the copyright itself.
In the sco case, they actually attempted to assert ownership of the copyright itself, not that they had a license to suit their needs. I don't think the university would claims complete control, rather that they had a license that didn't remove their own control. In other words, the guy would have cross or dual licenses the software by the association leading to a work for hire. I can see the argument being made and working.
Well, Here is the problem. the discussions didn't pertain to anything surrounding the license. The university can claim and assumption that they would have a license and the guy would have to claim nothing gave them that assumption. It would boil down to the lawyers presenting the case and who is the most believable concerning who knew what, expected what, and when.
And here is the backing that would allow a judge to assume the license existed to distribute. If you clearly rent something, you know you will have to give it back. The condition of employment wasn't to rent part of the software and own only what was built from it, the condition was to hire the guy to bring this software to the department and build on it. Now where would the department get a right to build on the preexisting software? From the author, who did they hire, the author and copyright holder. Did they set terms that they only wanted to use it internally? No, not that the article mentions, so it's reasonable to believe that the employment compensation was for both rights to the software and improvements built on the software while in employ of the department. Otherwise, the improvements wouldn't be as valuable. This especially becomes the case if the employment was under the impression that the software was originally developed for a class in which they would already have a license according to the terms set forth for enrolement.
Now I can't say for sure if this university has that policy, but they often so and that could lead to a license being implied regardless of what the intent is.
I'm glad you're keeping your humor in this. However, it's not as funny as you might think considering some of the more recent court decisions that seem to defy common sense. I learned a long time ago, about any lawyer can construe about any situation any way they like. There is enough legal precedent behind this to allow an implicit license to win here. I guess the first thing the guy should do beside seeking competent legal counsel, is sit down with the employer to make sure they know what they got when he came on board and see if that differs from what they think they got.
The DC heller case may have included explosives by association with it's ruling but it didn't say that no restrictions could be placed on ownership. It said that no restrictions prohibiting ownership or the usefulness could remain.
In fact, as a farmer, my father used to have an explosives license and was able to obtain or manufacture explosives for use on the farm. We simply had to justify it's need, notify the county sheriff when it was to be used, and not keep excess on hand. The laws have changed a little since then and I don't have it any more but it was really useful in removing a rock shelf that game me another 30 acres of 12 inch or more topsoil where there was only 3 inches before. The laws still allow people to obtain explosives, there is just more checks and hoops to jump through but it doesn't disallow it.
I agree with your conclusion that the intent of the founders was clear. It's just that the DC case didn't really outlaw restrictions, it made it so that the restrictions couldn't prohibit ownership.
The school could get an implicit license by the nature of the employment. That is if he owned all the OSS code he was hired to work on and develop.
You see, if I hire you to do something because you have X experience and I'm expecting to keep the fruits of your experience, then you need to license the amount of experience to me in order to retain the value of your contributions. So simply hiring him may have been enough to imply a license other then the GPL in order to retain the value and usage of the work for hire code if "his" code is in fact all "his" copyright (outside of the GPLed libraries).
So yes, while they may not get his copyright, they make get a license to the work that allows it to be used outside of the GPL. If that is the case, then whoever owns the libraries will need to pursue the GPL violations if it doesn't fall into one of the exceptions.
That's only if the code in question is contributed to by other sources then the employee.
You see, where the break down in this is even though it's GPL'd, the owner of the copyright can license the code in ways inconsistent with the GPL. This is typically known as a dual license.
I guess the real question here is if the implicit request of the code and continuation of the project, would that require a separate license for the GPLed code given that the author of the code is the employee and he took gainful employment based on that previous code itself. As an employer, one could easily make the argument that was implied with the hiring because his position and salary was based off access to the code and his continued work on the code for hire.
If others owned the code, it couldn't be that simple because you can only assign rights to code you own. But seeing how it's implied that he was the author to date and the potential problems cropped up after asking for outside help, then it's reasonable to assume it was all his code. He may be forced to apply a separate license then the GPL to allow his work for hire code to be functional and all the GPL code that would apply is the code before the hire.
Your sort of missing the point too. The constitution needs to be interpreted as it was meant to be understood at the time of writing it. The state secrets point is mooted by the fact that the founder and the constitution always recognized a right of sovereignty which allowed restrictions forbidden in the constitution with respect to foreign powers and the borders. The very first congress of the United States, one which many of the founders, authors, and signatories to the Constitution of the United States were members of, initiated warantless searches at borders because the right of sovereignty allowed it.
The constitution need to be interpreted how the founders intended. There were laws and rules regarding spies and agents of foreign powers even then which would cover giving state secrets to foreign countries. It's not a question that would need to be reinterpreted at all and nothing has changed in modern times that would make it different.
And I assume that you read the DC gun case ruling where the Supreme Court rightfully interpreted the second amendment as it was written and intended by the Constitution including using the rules of language and various other state constitutions with similar language? That is what is meant as being a strict constitutionalists. It's not that the words are the holey grail, it's that if the meaning of words in the constitution have change, we need to resort to the original definition and intent at the time of the writing, signing, and adoption of the constitution.
A common theme in the second amendment clause with modern denialist is that it only means for government service personnel and when the historical facts were brought up to change that interpretation, they simply dismissed it as not being relevant to today's times. That line of reasoning is exactly what I meant when I mentioned the first, forth, fifth and sixth amendments going away, because someone found that it's not relevant in today's times even though the framers clearly meant it to mean something. Suppose the definition of a search is changed to only mean the home you live in instead of any place you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Then you could be searched as soon as you step out of your home, at any time in any hotel or anywhere else without reason or violating your constitutional protections from unwarranted searches. That was not what was intended by the framers at all.
The difference here is that if the constitution needs to be changed, it sets a pretty strict guideline to how it can be changed that requires quite a bit of support from the states and public and the
Oh my.. DO you have some serious misconceptions.
You see, money is backed by wealth. As more wealth is created, more money is created. The problem is that wealth doesn't auto-magically present itself as money or currency and the wealth value can be different values to different people. See the difference between being rich and wealthy if you are confused here.
Now the reserve bank doesn't start by making loans, it starts by consolidating wealth that is owned by people. Then instead of issuing parts of that wealth, it issues notes based on that wealth known as money/currency. Anything can be currency but not everything can be money. So what happens is the government of the land issues a law/writ that states this specific currency is legal tender for all debts, public and private. This validates a certain form of currency as the value of the currency instead of the value of the wealth. Without it, a cabinet maker could be sitting on a million dollars of already made cabinets but if the person who supplies his food doesn't need a cabinet, then it's worthless for getting food. The cabinet maker then has to find someone who needs the cabinets, trade for currency that he can then trade for food or trade for something else that can be traded for food. With money, he trades the first person for money, he now has legal tender of the value that can be directly traded for food and the food maker can trade that for whatever it is that he needs and there is no breakdown efficiency with several trades in order to get what you need.
Now, suppose that we have a population of 10 people (five males and five females) who earn $100 a year and in the total population there is only $1000 in wealth. Each person spend this $100 salary and lives substantially all year long. Now suppose that these 10 people had one child per couple one year and another later down the road. The children would now increase the population to 15 and eventually 20. Now we still only have $1000 between them so instead of $100 a year income, it goes down to $75 and eventually $50. The problem here is that the needs of each person are the same so you have what is known as deflation where prices for good will need to be lowered in order for people to afford them and increases in good production will be needed in order to supply them.
Now, if wealth isn't created, they are in for a big catastrophe economically because it's near impossible to continue creating more for less. So someone loans money based on funds deposited for ventures that will create wealth. Soon, new wealth is added and everyone has what they need and then some. Now we can have inflation because people will charge more for their good to get the extra. So lets say that half of the now 20 people want more and the other half end up getting shorted. Instead of causing a bubble that collapses, they simply borrow money that can be used to create more wealth.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated then that, but your understanding of the central bank monetary system is lacking enormously. Now it is true that there is an exponential rate of loans to wealth but that's not really important was it delays the effects of not having a slush fund of capitol to absorb the ups and downs with a straight wealth based currency. Eventually, if it isn't self correcting, you will see the bubbles, but it will be less often and mostly not as much as it would naturally be.
Not really. Hedges are different beasts altogether and relate more to markets then monetary systems. It's true that a market can destroy or tear down a monetar
Maybe you should check some facts yourself. Meirs was on the advisory board for a university, head of the Dallas bar association as well as the Texas state bar association and has had just as much if not more experience as Kagan if you discount the political appointments as I said before. Kagan has only been the solicitor general for a little over one year so the distinction between being a white house lawyer (that both were) and the solicitor general is pretty low. Meirs actually has more experience in practicing law privately as well as politically then Kagan does.
It was the dems and media too. Everyone saw it as a bad idea period. Patrick Leahy (D) charged Miers with being "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" with regard to comity questions. This wasn't as you mentioned, a one sided issue and plenty of democrats made plenty of charges.
If you weren't blinded by your own politics, you wouldn't be burying your head in the sand with this. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh except for on a few occasions when I want to see why all the liberals are pissed off and what the so called conservatives are pissed about. But as you said, you should start fact checking the things you heard. I didn't offer that the approach I mentioned would be successful, I offered that it would sufficiently supplant any gay bashing agenda and not carry the notations of being a gay basher.
This comes down to things like being a racist without people knowing you are a racists. Did you know that the prevailing wage laws and the government requirements to pay them was not some union conspiracy to rape funding from the government and increase their membership but a racists move designed to lock minority contractors out of government projects? That's right, the problems was that the blacks and Chinese didn't have much, were repressed in society and didn't expect to get much, so contractors would hire them at lower wages to underbid contracts submitted by all white firms where the employees expected a decent pay for decent work. A prevailing wage allowed the all white contractors to compete and maintain white employment while pushing most of the minority firms out because they lacked the funding to pay the prevailing wages. Of course that has changed some now to where any firms of sufficient size should be able to be financed to cover the prevailing wage, but it's conception and appearance was the point. Most people don't even associate the prevailing wage with one of the most racists motivated laws passed but the reality of the situation differs.
In case you are having a difficult time translating the prevailing wage and racism, look at the root of the calls against illegal immigrants stealing American jobs. Anyways, the republicans, and probably some of the democrats can bash Hagan all they want without bringing up the gays at all simply by repeating the Meirs ordeal. This can have the same effect as bashing her for her gay views without even bringing gay into the picture.
And I like being able to bribe one or two senators per state instead of entire state legislatures. It costs way less money and outside of innuendos from disenfranchised idiots or disgruntles constituents, nobody knows it is going on. I guess we all get what we want. Screw Federalism.
It won't be about the Gays....
All the GOP has to do is retread the comments made over Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers which has about the same qualifications once you factor political ideology out.
In other words, the GOP can bring up the same crap the dems brought up about another similar candidate, remind everyone that it's the same concerns the dems had just a couple of years ago, and either force people to realize the level of politics being played or cause the Dems to jump back from the nominee and not support her.
In fact, this is probably just a Stunt by Obama to get a more liberal nominee approved. After Miers was withdrawn, Bush was able to put anyone else up and get them approved.
So your perfectly fine with the Supreme Court or any Court for that matter making the 1st, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments pretty much null and void except in the most narrow of situations?
I mean if the constitution is an old document that doesn't apply any more and should be interpreted to however in the hell people of today decide instead of in the context to which it was written, then your opening the door for just that. Accepting the already reinterpreted versions is not only dangerous but the same so why look at it at all? It's only the highest document in the land that describes what the federal government can and cannot do accounting to the foundation of this great nation. And if it doesn't matter on some things, then why should it matter at all on the things you might hold valuable?
This always makes me laugh. Strict constitutionalists seem to be the ones protecting the freedoms that the constitution bars the government from taking from the people. Yet, those who see that as just, are typically the same ones who see laws that restrict their freedoms or empower law enforcement as unconscionable even though the restrictions that make warrant-less searches and wire taping or being held without a trial, or being stopped on the street and arrested if you can't provide your papers all illegal and a violation of constitutional rights if it happens.
So maybe you should ask yourself, if the rights you hold dear are protected by the constitution, then why is it that only part of the constitution should have meaning and not all of it. After all, it's the one thing that stops the government from ignoring all your rights.
I can see it now, You don't need a gun, you don't need a speedy trial, you don't need protections from unwarranted searches, you don't need freedom of speech, you don't need to vote, you don't need to be able to practice a religion of your choice or non-at-all, you do not need to elect your representatives or senators. What's that? The constitution? Well, that's just something that gets interpreted to however we want at the moment, it's nothing binding because it is an old document. It is simple and elegant, but not perfect, and many many times before has it stood for nothing and been reinterpreted and you will let it stand for nothing again.
Well, it still would have to be a massive conspiracy seeing how Clinton didn't do much more then throw rocks at them and Bush threw a lot more. Even if you are right and it isn't a conspiracy, then you can't fault the political leaders for their political philosophy if they weren't involved. That's the problem I have with these big conspiracies, it all requires politicians to be part of them or to be innocent pawns in them. Yet when they get presented, it's as if they are idiots and at fault. Well, they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Actually, this is because it's a system that works and works with other countries in international trade. It's not some massive conspiracy, the debt for wealth scheme is a simple buffer on inflation moves that stabilizes and standardizes the economies of the areas. Without it, you would have massive inflation or deflation with ever addition or subtraction of wealth in the monetary system. That's not good for the stability of any country.
The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system. In other words, it's the market not the monetary system causing those problems you see.
Actually, your forgettin
And you point is what, I didn't say it didn't happen, I said it's easier now. Anyways, your article backs up my point, partisanship in the state congress lead to senators not being seated and the public thought the process was undemocratic. The amendment was launched by the states, not the congress which fought it hard.
I will agree that we handled it badly. However, I think the part that went badly was waiting too long to take action when it was clearly warranted long before.
so we established that you would act differently. However, that's sort of the point and moot at the same time. The climbing a tree example wasn't that you would ban them, it's that you would react differently to them climbing it and that changing your position was perfectly fine. Each and every person would probably have something different to say and the main problem is who is in charge that can execute their change of mind. In the US, it happened to be Bush and the different position was that it's now to dangerous to allow Saddam to hide his possession or WMDs and act publicly against our interests while supporting terrorist. If you were in charge, you could have educated Saddam on how bad WMDs are and what to watch out for. The point isn't the different approaches, it's that different approaches was justified given some action.
No one outside of conspiracy kooks and people attempting to verbally attack the US shares your opinion here. Most of the people are completely clueless to the facts surrounding the situation and formed unwavering opinions based around that misinformation or assumptions without the facts. You even admitted it yourself when you attempted to claim that WMDs are completely made up.
But here is the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, India and Israel. The difference is two fold so pay particular close attention here. For one, Neither of those countries have engaged in hostile activities with the exception of N.K, against our allies in which the rest of the world came and bailed out. For two, neither of those countries have signed onto the NNPT or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any of it's variants. Iraq was both a member of the NNPT, the chemical weapons ban, the biological weapons ban, and several other treaties along with invading an staunch Allie. And before you show any more ignorance by saying Kuwait was all about oil, you might want to look into the relationship the US has had with Kuwait starting before the US was an actual country and including Kuwait's aid given to the marines in the battle of Tripoli. Our relationship with Kuwait predates oil and our country period. Our support for Iraq in the Iran war was at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for protection against Iran.
I can only guess to why we were such pussies. I'm assuming that it was the difference in politicking between administrations like Clinton's and Bush's. As for the UN, they have always been pretty much toothless. Korea was their first major action and they ended up giving the enemy advanced notice on most of the plans before MacArthur took over the head of theater.
Anyways, Clinton's approach seemed to be more of a tit for tat instead of you have to do this or else. Some people claim most of his actions regarding the treatment of UN inspectors was a smoke screen to hide his domestic problems but that's probably more made up then true.
I wouldn't go that far. Let me attempt to put it differently. Have you ever worked for someone who appeared clueless at their job and the only reason the business didn't implode was because of the hard work of other around them? Well, the US government seems to get that way on foreign relations when some democrats are in charge. Clinton was somewhat that way where love and respect was supposed to be the turning point instead of a nuke or armed conflict. It's basically a different style of government and they seem to have different strong point with different weak points. Well, at least in the last couple of decades.
There are people out there that have a philosophy that you can bribe other countries or some how diplomacy is suppose to work when it hasn't in the past. This is probably evident with the last election where Obama was supposed to make the world like us because he wasn't bush and all the sudden diplomacy would start working again. Well it doesn't seem to be that way in reality but some people just refuse to believe otherwise. That is a fundamental difference between different leaders in the past few decades.
How does that saying go? Never attribute malice to what can more easily be explained away by incompetence? Give peace a change is one of those incompetent actions where time and time again, if we leave hostile countries alone, they end up attacking one of our allies and we get into a large scale war. I'm not saying that we should be jumping to war, but people should know out threats aren't idle so they actually have some weight to them.
It's seriously just a difference in political approaches. For "civilized countries"
And now it's even easier to bribe one or two people instead of the entire state legislature.
Anyways, the non conspiracy nutjob version of why it was passed was because of partisan politicking that lead to several states not seating any senators along with the same partisanship of the elected and sentiments of being undemocratic. The public wanted the 17th amendment because it was a more democratic approach. Anyways, 5 of the 46 states beginning in 1912 were already was doing direct elections per state laws. Two more states gains statehood and chose their first senators but had elections after that.
It wasn't about bribery.
Here is another wrinkle that is being talked about in the US.
It appears that the UK's economic situation is a little messed up to where they will either have to raise taxes or cut some programs. It seems that the election went the way it did more because politicians were attempting to run away from that then run for an office. What they are saying here is whoever the controlling party is, that they will have to deal with the taxes or cuts and will be sitting out of power for quite a while. None of the parties want that.
This kind of means that no party exactly wants to be blamed for what is about to come so they may very well agree to not address the problems. That seems to mean that the UK will be at risk of seeing problems more along the lines of Greece and experience their recent problems.
In the US, fallout over some of the Tarp bailouts are being seen too in our attempts to fix our own problems. Evidently, one of the most conservative republicans was just outed on the republican ticket to represent the party next election because he voted for the bailouts. So there is a large backlash expected to incumbents who were in power when this mess came rushing down. This backlash seems to be including those who attempted to fix it after the fact regardless of if it was their fault or not. Even in well construed gerrymandered districts, it seems that incumbents at the federal level are at risk to some degree. It's this backlash that many US talking heads think will happen to whoever takes the reins of the UK government which makes some of them frightened to assert control.
The electoral college in the US was built out of a representation of the state's not the people. That may provide a separate but distinct difference between he two systems.
You see, each state in the US was a separate and sovereign country that agreed to surrender certain portions of their sovereignty to the federal government. Most of this was in the form relating to state affairs (state as in foreign affairs) and in relations between the states. Originally, the people elected representative that sat in the house, the states appointed two senators who sat in the senate and they agreed by vote to a president who had some powers of direction. This way, the needs of the people, the state and the union would be represented and balanced out. Now, even today, there is no constitutional requirement for the people to vote on a president. The choosing of electors in the college is solely left to the states to decide on their own.
So it isn't really the representatives that vote on a prime minister in the US system. it's the states themselves who do it. Of course the state government can be seen as representative of the people within the state, but outside of the state's laws, they have no obligation to listen to the people of the state. But the original intent was to allow the states an effective way to agree on a figure head that could be presented to foreign powers and direct congress to some degree.
Now this has been changed a little in modern times but it's still very similar in retrospect despite the misinformation and flagrant abuse of positions out there. The constitutional amendment that made the president and vice president a party ticket instead of a run off between the electors still allows the requirement that one official has to be from another state or their state's electoral votes do not count. So clearly, even with the constitutional amendment, it wasn't intended to change from being a representative of the several states. This modern idea that the president is supposed to be over the people is somewhat misplaced making it nothing like parliament even though they act like it.
One point about Velma being let loose on Linux. I have several locations where internet access by third parties and outside people is desirable. I have sectioned off a network that's fire-walled from the business nets and installed a couple Linux workstations to facilitate this unsecured access.
The most I get called on about in this environment is where a web browser popup says they are infected with something and they can't get the anti-virus it said to use installed. Of course there are tons of outsiders wanting to help with "click it this way" or "you need to be the administrator, right click and select run as then type administrator". I once got a call about the administrator account having been removed from the machine when some rocket scientist consultant attempted to install some program to view the "i love you" message/video his ex girlfriend sent him. (by rocket scientist, I mean the owners nephew or kid or relative or smarter then you next door neighbor, I didn't mean to put actual rocket scientists down that low). And there are those people who found it listed in a forum somewhere that in order to run the program they just downloaded from some random internet site that does something barely legal, they have to disable the anti-virus scanner first because big business has the program listed as a virus to stop you from running it and force you to purchase their version.
Anyways, while the system is still being administrated by a somewhat competent administrator, I really have no problem letting Velma and her kids run wild on it. It simply doesn't let them screw most things up and on the rare occasion it does, I simply restore the /home/user directories to a recent backup that was made with all the Firefox updates and viewers and programs we want them to be able to use. I monitor the traffic on that network as part of the IDS procedures we have in place and to date, they aren't spam bots or or warez traffic.
I guess what I'm getting at is even Velma could be safe on Linux if Glenn or one of his buddies set it up for her. as long as she can do what she wants that isn't destructive, Velma will not know the difference.